Absolutely needed: to get high efficiency for this beast … as it gets better, we’ll become too dependent.

“all of this growth is for a new technology that’s still finding its footing, and in many applications—education, medical advice, legal analysis—might be the wrong tool for the job,”

  • msage@programming.dev
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    1
    arrow-down
    1
    ·
    2 days ago

    Smarter how? Synthetic benchmarks?

    Because I’ve heard the opposite from users and bloggers.

    • FreedomAdvocate@lemmy.net.au
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      1
      ·
      1 day ago

      So you want me to provide some evidence that it’s getting smarter, but you can’t provide any that it’s getting worse other than anecdotal evidence?

      What evidence would you accept?

          • msage@programming.dev
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            1
            ·
            19 hours ago

            Any significant shift in the model, or a complete restructuralization of the approach.

            As it is, it won’t grow anywhere.

            • FreedomAdvocate@lemmy.net.au
              link
              fedilink
              English
              arrow-up
              1
              arrow-down
              1
              ·
              edit-2
              10 hours ago

              So you’ve got access to all this stuffs source code and know what has and hasn’t changed with every update?

                  • msage@programming.dev
                    link
                    fedilink
                    English
                    arrow-up
                    1
                    arrow-down
                    1
                    ·
                    9 hours ago

                    No, they are spreading lies about shit that doesn’t matter as to not lose the hype.

                    If anyone made any significant advance, they would be all over the world.